Sentences with phrase «plaintiff and defendant when»

Not exact matches

In Metzler v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, an operator of vocational colleges, had manipulated student enrollment data, and that plaintiff suffered losses when the company issued a press release showing lower earnings than the false data had suggested.

The Ninth Circuit took a similar approach in Berson v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., and ultimately fashioned a standard for loss causation in Nuveen v. City of Alameda when it held that a plaintiff can establish loss causation «by showing that the defendant misrepresented or omitted the very facts that were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's economic loss.»

Where defendant, manufacturer of a sauce similar to plaintiff's, copied the printed matter on plaintiff's bottle and carton and adopted a bottle and carton of the same size and shape as plaintiff's, he was guilty of unfair competition, although certain differences between the bottles could be discovered when the two were placed side by side.

Not only did defendant adopt the name and imitate the bottles and cartons in use by plaintiff, but at the very beginning, when he started the manufacture and sale of his sauce in competition with the long established business of plaintiff, he printed on his bottle labels a caution to use «only the genuine Evangeline,» thus apparently seeking to create the impression that such «Evangeline» Tabasco Sauce was an old and established brand, against spurious imitations of which the public should be warned.

They prayed the court for «an order nullifying the conduct of the congresses of the Ogun State chapter of the 1st defendant (PDP) held on October 27, 2017, October 28, 2017, and November 4, 2017, electing and or constituting another Executive Committee of the 1st defendant in Ogun State when the tenure of the plaintiffs have not expired.

The judgment read in part, «The crucial question that follows is this: when the 1st defendant (House of Representatives) sent the letter of 20/3/2002 to the Plaintiff (el - Rufai) to appear before its Ethics and Privileges Committee, was it engaged in the making of a law within its legislative competence or to expose corruption and inefficiency in a public department?

The plaintiff and the second defendant in the matter, Valentino Nii Noi, who won the primary, agreed to the submission and moved the motion to set aside the earlier default judgement given by the court when the party failed to make an appearance.

He also sought an order of interim injunction restraining the second and third defendants, whether by themselves, servants, agents, privies or howsoever called from forwarding a fresh name or governorship aspirant to the first defendant, when the plaintiff was still alive and had not withdrawn his candidacy for the governorship election of Bayelsa State, pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The state education commissioner acknowledges the achievement gap, as does the attorney general and even Gov. Dannel Malloy, who went from plaintiff in the CCJEF lawsuit when he was mayor of Stamford to defendant in the case when he became governor in 2011.

As with an ordinary lawsuit, an adversary proceeding begins when a plaintiff serves a summons and complain on a defendant.

Wealthy people are the most likely targets of lawsuits, and juries tend to award plaintiffs high amounts when the defendants seem to have the means to cover the exorbitant costs.

[Geek note: structured settlements arise when a plaintiff wins a court case, and a stream of payments must be made by a defendant for the rest of the plaintiff's life.

A judgment is a legal term used when a plaintiff files and wins a civil lawsuit against a defendant.

Scholz v. Scholz 2013 BCCA 309 Trusts — Constructive trusts — General principles — Circumstances when not imposed In 2001, Scholz and his wife (defendants), invited Scholz's mother (the plaintiff), to build a coach house on their property in Vancouver.

For example, on a scale of 1 = Excellent and 5 = Very Poor, jurors gave defense attorneys, on average, a competence score of 1.68 when they returned a verdict that was completely in favor of the defendant, 1.95 when they returned a split verdict, and 2.23 when they returned a verdict that was all in favor of the state / plaintiff.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision in Schmeiser, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal have considered a number of cases on the consideration to be given to non-infringing alternatives when assessing the plaintiff's damages or the defendant's profits.

If the jurors rated similarly situated attorneys equally, as one might expect, the lines on the graphs would appear as a perfect «X.» One would expect the defense attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the plaintiff attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts and the plaintiff attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys when the juries return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on all counts.

Plaintiff and defendant were both divorced and in their 40s when they began dating.

When child custody jurisdiction is based solely upon the child's residence, and not upon the defendant's residence, does the family court have jurisdiction to make the defendant pay the plaintiff's attorneys fees?

[16] Thus, the issue is framed — can a defendant or third party who has not obtained a doctor's report by compulsion of a court order, and prior to disclosure of any medical - legal reports by the plaintiff or in the absence of any reports, obtain access to the non-treating doctor's notes and clinical findings, or are said notes and clinical records privileged as forming part of the brief of the plaintiff's solicitor until the time when the plaintiff chooses to rely on the non-treating doctor as a witness at trial and the doctor's notes must be disclosed...

Plaintiff parents sued social hosts and social companions for negligence, alleging they were responsible for injuries sustained by plaintiffs» son Robert when, after drinking at defendant's home, he jumped from a fence and was rendered a quadriplegic.

[5] The argument made by the parties is, first, for the defendants, that the defendants are entitled pursuant to Rule 7 - 6 to obtain an order requiring the plaintiff to attend at a medical examination and that the test to be addressed by the court in determining where and when the examination should take place is fully and accurately described by Master Bouck in the decision of Parsons v. Mears, 2011 BCSC 397.

Acknowledging the issues were novel, the motions judge in SC v. NS concluded that the defendant / accused had breached the deemed undertaking of confidentiality when he used for his criminal defence the plaintiff's documentary productions from the civil case without first seeking directions from the court as to whether and how he could do so.

To prevail on summary judgment, the defendant is required to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the undisputed facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, require judgment for the defendant as a matter of law.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit brought by a number of people who were injured when the rear deck of a home owned by the defendant and rented to several of the plaintiffs disconnected from the home and fell to the ground.

The plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the hands of the defendant manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and that the defect was the cause of the accident that led to the plaintiff's injuries.

Often, Indiana accident plaintiffs are surprised and upset when a case that seems open and shut is derailed by a complicated procedural or evidentiary issue that the defendant's attorneys take advantage of.

A claim of privilege can still be asserted by the defendants if and when the plaintiff seeks to introduce the minutes into evidence and it will be for the trial judge to determine whether any kind of privilege does indeed attach.

2205 (2011)[U.S. Supreme Ct.]; author — Justice Kagan: «But for» test applies when determining whether a prevailing defendant should recover fees in a plaintiff's civil rights suit involving both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims, rejecting the district court's use of a «focus» test.

Thus, the one - and two - year statutes of limitations on Plaintiff's claims, which are based on Defendant's alleged failures to promote him, began to run in August 2009 when Defendant denied Plaintiff the promotion in the Madison, Wisconsin location.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant officer became angry when he did not find the marijuana and put plaintiff in a choke hold while he was in handcuffs.

Plaintiff responds that his claims are not based on discrete acts, but rather on a continuing violation — a continuing failure by Mr. Michals to honor his promise — that began in August 2009 and culminated in October 2012, when Plaintiff realized for the first time that Defendant would not be fulfilling its promises to promote him.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while the plaintiffs were invitees when they were in the non-restricted area, their status changed to that of trespassers when they went past the barrier, and thus, the defendant's duty to them changed as well.

The plaintiff employee, Mr. Arnone, had worked with the defendant company, Best Theratronics Ltd., and its predecessor for about 31 years when he was terminated without cause on November 26, 2012.

Assumption of the risk is a legal defense that may apply when a defendant argues that a plaintiff knew the risks involved with engaging in a dangerous activity, and thereby accepted those risks by willingly participating in the activity.

Judicata's statistics demonstrate that both plaintiffs and defendants fare better when they cite to more cases that go their way.

You used an example of when a debtor moves to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13, and a creditor files a complaint to oppose it, the judge decides the case by «finding for the plaintiff,» which really means the conversion was denied because the plaintiff is the creditor and the defendant is the debtor.

It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one.

George et al. v. Newfoundland and Labrador 2013 NLTD (G) 170 Evidence — Opinion evidence — Expert evidence — General — When expert evidence required The representative plaintiffs commenced this class action on January 5, 2011, for damages in respect of personal injuries as a result of moose - vehicle collisions in Newfoundland and Labrador (the defendant).

Plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle and Defendants» truck collided.

While the court concluded the plaintiff had not met the test for apportionment, the plaintiff's success in that case on the issue of fault (although no damage was found and the action dismissed) was a relevant factor under Rule 37B (6)(d), now Rule 9 - 1 (5)(b), on considering if the defendant was entitled to double costs when there had been a defence offer, which in Mudry obviously exceeded the damage award which was nil..

Therefore, when applying the section to any specific action, it is understood that joint and several liability to the plaintiff can and will attach only to a party defendant, although others who may also have been at fault could potentially have been found jointly and severally liable had they been sued by the plaintiff.

The defendant's wife also worked in the same dental office, and she discovered that her husband would text message the plaintiff, especially when she was out of town on vacation.

The plaintiff was hired in 1999 when she was only 20 years old, and the defendant conceded she was an excellent employee.

Plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was injured when the Defendant, who was driving a large SUV, suddenly and without warning, made an abrupt left hand turn directly in front of him.

However, plaintiffs still have to follow other typical procedures when starting a claim including serving the defendant with the court - issued claim and filing proof of service which can be done online.

Basically, this is to protect people who are exercising legal free speech and fair use rights from suffering legal burdens of fighting a case where the plaintiff alleges copyright or defamation charges against defendant when that is of extremely questionable grounds.

«The lesson for plaintiffs is,» said Randall L. Kiser, a co-author of the study and principal analyst at litigation consulting firm DecisionSet, «in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant's offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more.»

This critical analytical distinction gives rise to the requirement that a public figure defamation plaintiff, in addition to proving that the statement was false, must prove a defendant's actual malice (i.e., knowledge of falsity or conscious disregard as to the truth) in order to win a defamation claim.169 The concept itself is fluid and nuanced, providing a purposive device that can be used to ascertain when the «second order» of defamation claim proposed herein is to be used.

When a defendant is sued, the defendant is required by law to bring any claims that the defendant has against the plaintiff as a mandatory counterclaim if they are related to the case and is permitted to bring any claims the defendant has against the plaintiff for any reason as a permissive counterclaim.